<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>

<rdf:RDF
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:prism="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/prism/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
>

<channel rdf:about="http://eup.sagepub.com">
<title>European Union Politics current issue</title>
<link>http://eup.sagepub.com</link>
<description>European Union Politics RSS feed -- current issue</description>
<prism:coverDisplayDate>September 2008</prism:coverDisplayDate>
<prism:publicationName>European Union Politics</prism:publicationName>
<prism:issn>1465-1165</prism:issn>
<items>
 <rdf:Seq>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://eup.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/315?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://eup.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/339?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://eup.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/363?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://eup.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/379?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://eup.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/403?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://eup.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/435?rss=1" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
<image rdf:resource="http://eup.sagepub.com:80/icons/banner/title.gif" />
</channel>

<image rdf:about="http://eup.sagepub.com:80/icons/banner/title.gif">
<title>European Union Politics</title>
<url>http://eup.sagepub.com:80/icons/banner/title.gif</url>
<link>http://eup.sagepub.com</link>
</image>

<item rdf:about="http://eup.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/315?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Council Presidency: Power Broker or Burden? An Empirical Analysis]]></title>
<link>http://eup.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/315?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The potential impact of the EU Council Presidency on legislative decision-making has been frequently identified. This article provides an empirical analysis of the Presidency's influence on decision outcomes based on a large-n data set. Two counterfactuals are used to represent consensual decision-making and hard bargaining in the Council. The role of supranational actors is controlled for directly. The findings show that a member state benefits from holding the Presidency during the final stages of the legislative proceedings. Besides the support of supranational actors, the regression analysis controls for the voting threshold, the type of proposal and salience.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Warntjen, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-08-11</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/1465116508093487</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Council Presidency: Power Broker or Burden? An Empirical Analysis]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>9</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>338</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>315</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://eup.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/339?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Does European Citizenship Increase Tolerance in Young People?]]></title>
<link>http://eup.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/339?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>While Europe is celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the Rome Treaty, there is much doubt about the extent of citizens' emotional attachment to Europe. In this article we examine whether young Belgians show a sense of European citizenship, using a range of questions about the European Union (EU) from a survey administered to more than 6000 secondary school students. We show that a genuine identification with Europe &mdash; one that is not purely based on a positive evaluation of the EU from a utilitarian point of view &mdash; is related to higher levels of tolerance towards ethnic minorities, Muslims and immigrants. In addition, we will provide an overview of the literature on European citizenship and its potential connection to a higher degree of tolerance towards different cultures.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Quintelier, E., Dejaeghere, Y.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-08-11</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/1465116508093488</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Does European Citizenship Increase Tolerance in Young People?]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>9</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>362</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>339</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://eup.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/363?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Determinants of Support for European Integration: The Case of Bulgaria]]></title>
<link>http://eup.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/363?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The electorate's ability to influence the European agenda through European elections and national referenda has led to a close inspection of public attitudes by both academics and politicians. Taking a micro-level approach, this article contributes to the larger literature on the formation of public attitudes and aims at identifying the factors that influence public attitudes towards European integration in Bulgaria, one of the new member states. We use a national survey and rely upon utilitarian, value-based and heuristic factors to test several hypotheses. Although our data confirm the argument that support is higher in countries with lower opportunity costs of transferring sovereignty to the European Union, we also find that EU membership is assessed by projecting potential benefits for future generations rather than self-centered expectations of immediate returns.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tanasoiu, C., Colonescu, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-08-11</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/1465116508093489</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Determinants of Support for European Integration: The Case of Bulgaria]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>9</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>377</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>363</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://eup.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/379?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Embracing European Law: Compliance with EU Directives in Central and Eastern Europe]]></title>
<link>http://eup.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/379?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Accession to the European Union (EU) demands the adoption of a vast body of legislation. This paper analyses compliance with EU directives in eight post-communist countries during the Eastern enlargement and tries to account for the puzzling embrace of EU law in Central and Eastern Europe. Drawing on a new data set tracking the transposition of a sample of 119 directives, the paper finds effects of both political preferences and government capacity on the likelihood of timely transposition. Furthermore, important sectoral differences are uncovered, with trade-related legislation having a better chance and environmental legislation having a significantly worse chance of being incorporated into national legal systems on time. Beyond the conditionality of the accession process, the paper unveils a complex causal structure behind the ups and downs in transposition performance.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Toshkov, D.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-08-11</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/1465116508093490</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Embracing European Law: Compliance with EU Directives in Central and Eastern Europe]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>9</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>402</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>379</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://eup.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/403?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Mobilizing Bias in Europe: Lobbies, Democracy and EU Health Policy-Making]]></title>
<link>http://eup.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/403?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>What effects do interest groups have on the democratization and legitimacy of the European Union (EU)? Interest groups can democratize the EU only to the extent that they do not replicate inequalities. We use a newly constructed database to look for inequalities: Are the big organizations in Brussels the same as the ones in the EU member states? Are some member states' lobbies more active than others? And does the structure of EU lobbying create insiders and outsiders itself? We find representative biases in favor of powerful incumbents, groups from some member states and wellresourced groups.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Greer, S. L., da Fonseca, E. M., Adolph, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-08-11</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/1465116508093491</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Mobilizing Bias in Europe: Lobbies, Democracy and EU Health Policy-Making]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>9</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>433</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>403</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://eup.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/435?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Forum Section: The Two Faces of Framing: Individual-Level Framing and Collective Issue Definition in the European Union]]></title>
<link>http://eup.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/435?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Policy decisions are greatly affected by the way issues are understood collectively by policy-makers and the public. Naturally, advocates attempt to affect these dynamics by drawing attention to one dimension or another. Lobbyists outside government, such as political leaders and civil servants within governing institutions, try to spin or frame the issues on which they work. Research on framing is difficult, however, because of a methodological complication: no individual actor single-handedly determines how issues are defined collectively. The collective dynamics of agenda-setting and framing are subject to strong competitive forces, maintaining a stable equilibrium at most times, but also to threshold effects that can occasionally lead to rapid shifts in issue definitions. Research strategies used to study one face of framing (at the individual level) are ill suited to study the second face of framing (aggregate shifts in collective issue definitions). We discuss the two faces of framing as they relate to recent literature on policy-making in the European Union and we suggest some avenues for future research.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Baumgartner, F. R., Mahoney, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-08-11</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/1465116508093492</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Forum Section: The Two Faces of Framing: Individual-Level Framing and Collective Issue Definition in the European Union]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>9</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>449</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>435</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

</rdf:RDF>